Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV33111, Date: 2024-01-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV33111    Hearing Date: January 19, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

TENTATIVE RULING

DEPARTMENT 17

Plaintiff’s motion to compel responses is DENIED.

On September 17, 2019, Plaintiff Princess Obienu (Plaintiff) filed suit against the County of Los Angeles Department of Health Services (Defendant), alleging: (1) race/national origin discrimination; (2) disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate disability; (4) failure to engage in the interactive process; (5) violation of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA); (6) violation of the CFRA – Interference with Family Leave Rights; (7) violation of CFRA – retaliation; (8) failure to prevent/correct discrimination; and (9) retaliation.

            Now, Plaintiff moves to compel further deposition of Erik Limon.

Discussion

            Plaintiff moves to compel further deposition of Erik Limon.

CCP section 2024.020 requires discovery motions to be heard on or before the 15th day before the trial date. In this case, trial was set for August 21, 2023. As such, any discovery motion had to be noticed for hearing on or before August 6, 2023, and served no later than July 14, 2023. Plaintiff counsel served it two months later and noticed it to be heard four months after that. As the Court of Appeal has ruled, “a party who notices a discovery motion to be heard after the discovery motion cutoff date does not have a right to have the motion heard.” (Cottini v. Enloe Med. Ctr. (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 401, 420, quoting Pelton-Shepherd Industries, Inc. v. Delta Packaging Products, Inc. (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1568, 1586.)

Although discovery may have been reopened following the grant of a mistrial on September 29, 2023 (see Fairmont Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 22 Cal.4th 245), the present motion is still untimely, because it was served before the Court declared the mistrial and relates to discovery proceedings that took place long before the date initially set for trial. (See Golf & Tennis Pro Shop, Inc. v. Superior Court (2022) 84 Cal. App. 5th 127, 137 (discovery motion deadlines are “mandatory and the court may not entertain a belated motion to compel”).)

Moreover, on a substantive level, Plaintiff has not shown good cause to compel further deposition. Defendant’s opposition explains:

When Mr. Limon appeared for his deposition on August 9, 2023, Ms. Obienu’s counsel did not ask him a single question about the County’s CFRA policies, or about any CFRA complaints made by Ms. Obienu or other employees. Although the motion includes brief excerpts from the deposition, it omits an important series of questions, in which Mr. Limon made it clear that he was prepared to testify on those very subjects…. inexplicably, Ms. Obienu’s counsel terminated the deposition minutes later, without having asked any questions about the CFRA policy or any complaints. A review of the complete transcript shows that Mr. Limon answered every question asked of him, that he never responded he did not know the answer to a question, and that counsel objected to a few questions, but never instructed Mr. Limon not to answer. The documents related to the subject matter that Mr. Limon was to testify on were provided to Ms. Obienu’s counsel before the deposition started.

            (House Decl. ¶ 4.)

By contrast, in Maldonado v. Superior Court (2002) 94 Cal.App.4th 1390, 1396, a case cited in support by Plaintiff, the witnesses produced at deposition “knew very little about the topics specified in the notices,” and did not produce the documents they had been requested to bring with to bring with them.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion to compel further deposition is denied.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  January    , 2024

   Hon. Jon R. Takasugi
   Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.  If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this tentative as the final order.  If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.